vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC (AIT) and urban-gro, Inc. (UGRO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.2B vs $2.4M, roughly 487.9× urban-gro, Inc.). APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC runs the higher net margin — 8.2% vs -203.1%, a 211.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.4% vs -75.9%). Over the past eight quarters, APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC's revenue compounded faster (0.7% CAGR vs -60.3%).
Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. (AIT) is a public, global company based in the U.S. and focused on the distribution of bearings, power transmission products, engineered fluid power components and systems, specialty flow control products, and other industrial supplies. AIT provides engineering, design and system integration for industrial and fluid power applications, as well as customized mechanical, fabricated rubber, fluid power, and flow control shop services.
urban-gro, Inc. is a specialized professional services and solutions provider focused on controlled environment agriculture (CEA) and indoor cultivation facilities. It offers end-to-end design, engineering, equipment sourcing, integration, and operational support services, serving primarily commercial cannabis and food cultivation clients across North America.
AIT vs UGRO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.2B | $2.4M |
| Net Profit | $95.3M | $-4.8M |
| Gross Margin | 30.4% | -7.2% |
| Operating Margin | 10.6% | -93.8% |
| Net Margin | 8.2% | -203.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 8.4% | -75.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 2.2% | -28.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.51 | — |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $2.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $7.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $9.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $-3.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $9.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $17.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $15.4M |
| Q4 25 | $95.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $100.8M | $-4.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.8M | $-6.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.8M | $-4.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.3M | $-27.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $-3.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $103.5M | $-3.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $97.2M | $-2.6M |
| Q4 25 | 30.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.1% | -7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.6% | 0.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.5% | 6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.6% | 201.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.6% | 7.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.7% | 13.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.5% | 19.4% |
| Q4 25 | 10.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.8% | -93.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.0% | -76.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.1% | -42.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.3% | 621.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.3% | -32.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.0% | -14.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.6% | -16.1% |
| Q4 25 | 8.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.4% | -203.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.8% | -79.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.6% | -42.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.7% | 843.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.4% | -38.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.9% | -16.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.5% | -16.6% |
| Q4 25 | $2.51 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.63 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.80 | $-10.64 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.57 | $-0.31 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.39 | $3.88 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.36 | $-0.30 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.64 | $-5.99 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.48 | $-0.21 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $406.0M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9B | $-38.9M |
| Total Assets | $3.2B | $3.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $406.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $418.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $388.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $352.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $303.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $538.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $460.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $456.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $-38.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $-34.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $-28.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | $-24.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $2.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $5.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $8.2M |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $3.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $9.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1B | $16.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $19.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | $49.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $55.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $45.7M |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $99.7M | $-2.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $93.4M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 8.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.05× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $458.5M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $99.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.3M | $-2.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $147.0M | $413.9K | ||
| Q1 25 | $122.5M | $2.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.1M | $-2.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $127.7M | $1.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.2M | $-2.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $84.2M | $628.5K |
| Q4 25 | $93.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $112.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $138.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $114.9M | $2.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $89.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.2M | $962.5K | ||
| Q2 24 | $111.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $76.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | 8.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.8% | 22.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.1% | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.6% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.5% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.05× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.18× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.36× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.23× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.02× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.39× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.15× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.87× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AIT
| Service Center Based Distribution Segment | $625.2M | 54% |
| Engineered Solutions Segment | $398.9M | 34% |
| Other | $75.8M | 7% |
| Hydradyne LLC | $63.1M | 5% |
UGRO
Segment breakdown not available.
